Taking Pet Adoption Seriously ...

... sometimes means not adopting at all.

A couple of advice columns dealing with pets reminded me of the time one of my brothers broke up with a girlfriend decades ago.

The straw that broke that camel's back: She came home with two yippy dogs without having consulted him about it.

I am not a dog person. I was sympathetic then, but it took me time to appreciate what a good move this was on his part. That wisdom has nothing to do with my preferences regarding dogs and I would go so far as to say that anyone who seriously appreciates dogs should agree with me.

Why?

Because some pets -- off the top of my head: anything dangerous, high-maintenance past a certain point, or large enough to have the run of the house -- inherently affect the daily life of the members of a household enough that everyone in the household deserves a say before making such a commitment. I can even see the argument that such pets demand a degree of commitment that is comparable enough to a human relationship that whether to adopt one is a major life decision.

Two advice columnists bear this out. In one case, a woman who works in an animal shelter has brought home so many dogs it is beginning to make her family's home life unbearable despite the fact that they all like dogs. In another case, one partner in a dog-loving couple appreciated that a new pet would not work for them at this time in their lives -- but her partner went ahead and brought home a dog, anyway:

Fast-forward: Butch is a sweet, loving pup. I adore him, but he's a ton of work. My fiancé is back in school and working so he's not happy stopping multiple times a day to take Butch out for air and exercise as the dog is an active breed. He does it, but some days are stressful for us both.

Abby, I resent him for this. We're both overloaded and now have another full-time responsibility plus extra bills. We love Butch but are overwhelmed. I would be miserable giving him away, which is what my fiancé now suggests.

Both columnists correctly advise their readers that finding a new home for a pet can be the best option, including being an improvement for the pet itself.

In each letter, it is clear that the writer sees the pet as part of the family and cares for it, which underscores that bringing a pet into one's home is a serious decision. (And conversely, when someone unilaterally does this, it is a red flag.)

On top of my positive point, the cultural baggage of altruism can make this harder than it needs to be: The pet needs a home. Lots of people will deem protecting one's own time and sanity, rather than sacrificing it to an unwanted pet, as "heartless," for example. Such ideas can lead to a bad decision motivated by inappropriate guilt or unwarranted pressure from others.

The discussion about whether to adopt a pet isn't the time for martyrdom, or giving in to an out-of-context desire to help an animal, or appeasing the rest of the family in the moment. Any such discussion has to be made with everyone's best interests in mind, especially those of the caregivers.

If someone truly cares for animals, they will not adopt one on a whim.

-- CAV

Franchise Model Update

There may soon be good news for businesses that rely on the franchise model, which, along with gig work, has been under assault from the left for quite some time.

The good news comes in the form of proposed regulations concerning "joint employment" that have just passed the required period for public comment:

These distinctions between business relationships and arrangements matter under our labor laws. What's known as "joint employment" occurs when two or more entities are both liable for a single worker's terms and conditions of employment. There's been a fight in Washington over changing the nature of franchising, staffing agenices, and even independent contracting relationships from partnerships to traditional employer -- employee arrangements, to the detriment of all and the communities they serve. The good news is that the Trump Department of Labor planted a flag in the ground to protect these independent arrangements in its thoughtful proposed joint employer rule.

The public comment period just concluded, but from the over 200 submissions, many franchise owners clearly communicated that they are their own boss, not the franchisor. Federal policy should weigh in favor of protecting this distinction rather than increasing legal liabilities for franchisors over the day-to-day employment decisions of independent business owners -- causing the whole model to crumble. [bold added]

The rest of the article does well to flesh out the advantages of contract work and the franchise business model, and by contrast, the potential damage of removing legal protection for them.

While this is good news, one must keep in mind a fact that is also apparent from the piece: As a regulatory change, this measure will be subject to the policies of future administrations. (A similar move in the first Trump term was just about wiped out by Biden.)

Until and unless advocates of liberty gain enough cultural momentum to cause a decisive political shift in favor of free markets, this battle will continue indefinitely, threatening countless small businesses in the long-term and discouraging entrepreneurs.

A battle may have been won, but the war rages on.

-- CAV

Trump Steals Credit Rather Than Sees Light

The White House is once again in damage control mode after -- get this! -- something the President said turned out to be made up.

I was going to say false, but that would be too good a word for what Trump spews out: False would imply that there is a relationship -- even a negative one -- between reality and what this person says.

Oddly enough, Walmart's recent lowering of food prices had something to do with the fact that the company isn't a charity or a criminal enterprise, and wants to make a profit.

Trump claimed in relevant part:

... one of the biggest, best, and smartest Retailers in America, Walmart, will be lowering prices, by a lot, at my Administration's request... [bold added]

(How some people willingly subject themselves to reading/listening to this irritating communication style on a regular basis is beyond me.)

In fact:

Shortly after Trump's Truth Social boast, Walmart issued a statement detailing its signature Rollbacks and Sam's Club offers, which the chain typically introduces during the summer. The statement mentioned price reductions on beef and other products but made no mention of Trump or the administration.

On July 7, one day after Trump's Truth Social post, The Wall Street Journal reported that an Agriculture Department official had called some of the country's largest grocers to urge them to lower their beef prices.

However, during a call with Walmart, the company told the USDA that it already planned to lower prices on a range of items, including beef, and that the reductions had been in place since June 29. [bold added]

Oh.

Setting aside the whole issue why in hell the government is telling people what to charge... Not only that, the price reductions came due to the February Supreme Court ruling against Trump's tariffs and the company's expectation that (1) a factor in our higher prices will have been eliminated and (2) it will recoup billions in tariff refunds.

Trump could learn from this, and reconsider his idée fixe regarding tariffs as an economic cure-all. He could admit he was mistaken about tariffs, get rid of them, apologize, and earn the nation's gratitude and relief.

But he won't. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to consider why.

-- CAV

Way More Safe Than Politicians

John Stossel's latest column is eye-opening for three reasons, perhaps the least being the astounding safety record of Waymo's driverless cars:

Waymo claims its cars are 10 times safer than human-driven ones. I wouldn't believe that if insurance companies, with their own money at stake, didn't agree.

Reinsurance News reports Waymos had an "88 percent reduction in property damage claims and a 92 percent reduction in bodily injury claims."

"We have the data," says Adam Thierer, author of Permissionless Innovation. "94 percent of all accidents are attributable to human error ... We can address one of the leading killers of Americans."

Stossel notes earlier that car accidents kill 100 Americans per day.

I heard that such cars were safer, but I had no idea how much safer they were.

Even more incredible -- although appalling is a better term -- is the fact that mafioso-like politicians are waging war against driverless cars and are -- thanks to the altruism behind their featherbedding rationale -- proud of the comparison:

[Luis] Sepulveda [(D-NY)] responds: "Waymo is going to make billions of dollars -- let them pay for the disruption to the labor force."

"Sounds like a mafia pitch," I push back. "'Want to come here, Waymo? You have to pay.'"

"If the pitch sounds like a mafia pitch, so be it," Sepulveda replies.

I thought I might change his thinking by making a creepy comparison, telling him his ban would kill more people than infamous serial killers have. Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, and John Wayne Gacy combined killed about 80 people. Human-driven cars kill more people every day.

"The data on Waymo is not 100 percent safety," he replies. "A Waymo vehicle struck a child in California."

Like most critics, he cites isolated incidents. Even that child wasn't injured. [bold added]

The daily human sacrifice of 100 humans to the god of make-work reminds me of Ayn Rand's apt turn-of-phrase to describe altruism: moral cannibalism.

If this isn't a story that at once shows the power of altruism to motivate and whitewash evil, I don't know what is.

-- CAV

Four Random Things

A Friday Hodgepodge

Screen capture by the author.

1. If you like Wordle, one "pompomsheep" at Hacker News is developing a timed word-solving game called 18 Words. As of this morning, the game gives you 30 seconds to solve words of increasing length and presents your score, in shareable form, for the 18.

2. A recent post at GeekPress notes that $180,000 isn't a "living wage" in San Francisco, reminding me of my move, soon after the 2008 financial crisis, to Boston.

Still reeling from the sticker shock of moving from a three bedroom house ten minutes away from work in Houston for $1000 a month -- to an apartment the size of a matchbox in Boston for $3500 a month -- I would regularly meet people at biotech networking events who had just moved from San Francisco to save money!

On the positive side, since my wife needed to be within a short commute to the hospital for her residency, we were able to ditch our cars altogether since that part of town was very walkable and well-served by subways.

3. On long road trips, my wife and I enjoy listening to audiobooks. Unfortunately, our road trips are usually far shorter than they used to be, now that we're New Orleanians. A possible remedy for us might be The Escape Pod, a science fiction podcast for short stories. (Based on a cursory look, they seem to be in the 30-60 minute range.)

I learned about the Escape Pod by reading and enjoying "Why I Left Harry's All-Night Hamburgers," which I recommend.

And yes, each story is available for reading at the site.

4. If, as I do, you occasionally take a "liver holiday," you might want to peruse this article and discussion on what makes a good mocktail.

-- CAV

(Comic) Relief From Rude Guests

Sometimes, advice columnists field questions about things that turn out to be non-problems. Case in point: a Dear Prudence question from the owner of a small farm whose guests fled at the prospect of no television set -- yes, set -- for a week after they broached the subject of their host purchasing one.

The writer is concerned that she should have informed the family beforehand that she didn't own a television set.

The answer contains all an egoist needs to know:

[T]hey could have 1) propped a laptop up on the coffee table and gathered around to watch it or 2) placed their own order for a new flat screen. It was incredibly rude of them to make you feel like you failed in some way. I'm just glad they left instead of subjecting you to whatever breakdown they were all going to have if they couldn't watch their shows.

Prudence was kind not to go further and wonder how worthwhile a week entertaining such couch potatoes would be for the host, or to congratulate her for getting rid of them so efficiently!

-- CAV

Tucker: Tip of the Demonic Iceberg

Witch-Hunting is making a comeback.

If you thought Tucker Carslon's ridiculous assertion that he'd been attacked in his sleep by demons was a one-off, I have news for you: At the Atlantic is a disturbing read about a particularly irrational Christian movement to wage what they call "spiritual warfare."

The piece focuses on a campaign of harassment by a couple, Andrea and Mike Brewer, who deem themselves such warriors, against the owner of a bookstore:

They went abroad as missionaries to India and Haiti, which only confirmed their emerging understanding of a universe with three distinct realms -- the heavenly, the earthly, and the underworld, with the Earth being the realm of spiritual warfare. On one side, the Holy Spirit, angels, and believers comprised an army of God. On the other were the forces of Satan -- legions of demons with names, ranks, and personalities that could inhabit people, geographical regions, and entire nations. In India, the Brewers claimed to have battled Shiva, Brahma, and Kali. In Haiti, Python and Mami Wata. There was Marduk, Osiris, Ra, Horus, Diana, Artemis, Shesha Naga, and so on -- a whole pantheon of demons that represented ancient religions and civilizations, and whose earthly expressions were essential to understanding current events.

By the time the Brewers returned to Maryville, they saw themselves as hardened spiritual warriors. They founded the Well [their charismatic church --ed] to continue the battle, joining an international network of churches and ministries called Global Awakening, which also had a seminary, where Andrea began studying demon history and hierarchies. When Mike asked God for their exact assignment, he told me when I visited in March, "the Lord spoke so clearly. He said, 'I'm giving you and the Well a mandate for the full eradication of witchcraft and demonic activity in the region.'" [bold added]

It should come as no surprise that the couple would eventually threaten the owner of a bookstore across the street from their church over drag shows she sometimes hosted for fundraisers:

[Bookstore owner Lisa Misosky's] recollection is that she called Mike, and that he talked about doing spiritual warfare against voodoo chiefs in Haiti, and that she said, "That's great, Mike. Why don't you have a cup of coffee with me?"

Mike's recollection is that he called Misosky. "I said, 'I'm not calling to resolve differences. We're not going to do that. I am calling to request that you go 18 and older for events,'" he said. " 'If you're marketing to children of this area, we're going to do everything within the law and the spirit to stop you. We will never harm you physically.' I said, 'I'm calling out of respect.'"

And that was the last time they spoke.

Soon after, Misosky got a call from the Anti-Defamation League. There had been some chatter about a protest at Southland [Books and Cafe] on neo-Nazi forums that the group monitored. At the time, all kinds of LGBTQ events around the country were being targeted by extremist groups. A gunman had just killed five people and injured 19 at an LGBTQ nightclub in Colorado. Misosky called the police. She called some local pastors she knew and asked that they show up at the fundraiser wearing their collars. She posted on Facebook that "MAGA fascists" were threatening the toy drive. [bold added]

Misosky is completely correct in her assessment that the Well targeted her bookstore and gave "moral cover" to the violent elements that would eventually get wind of this "spiritual battle" and show up.

That phone call was the moral equivalent of a mullah "inviting" infidels to convert or die, knowing that terrorists will feel justified in doing the dirty work if the implied threat doesn't get results.

The article is well worth reading in full, but with the following caveat: It is written from a leftist point of view, and as such, it is by an enemy of liberty about enemies of liberty. The author states in plain English which side she would assume advocates of capitalism are on:

Their version of the Kingdom mapped neatly onto the political goals of social conservatives, libertarians, and, more recently, the MAGA movement. The Kingdom would have limited government, free markets, two genders, one kind of marriage, and one kind of God. The "right now" part, meanwhile, offered an urgent paradigm for mobilizing grassroots believers out of the Church and into electoral politics, government, education, and all other realms of life where they were to assert God's dominion. The new apostles and prophets of the NAR spread these ideas through decentralized networks of churches, international prayer ministries, schools, revivals, and prayer rallies, attracting followers who could find a sense of power and purpose in building the Kingdom. Leaders spoke of believers as "warriors" or "God's army" or even "special forces," and churches as "military bases," and certain apostles as "generals." They believed that being a Christian meant being in a constant state of spiritual warfare. [bold added]

Ronald Reagan's deal with the devil of the religious right has been the gift that keeps on giving to the wrong people, left and right. Any reader of Ayn Rand's Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal will know to the contrary, for example, that capitalism is incompatible with religious tyranny, that religion cannot provide intellectual support for freedom of any kind, and that personal freedom is incompatible with economic tyranny.

-- CAV